| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC |
| Date: | 2005-07-07 04:01:33 |
| Message-ID: | 3070.1120708893@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 18:22 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Well, I added #1 yesterday as 'full_page_writes', and it has the same
>> warnings as fsync (namely, on crash, be prepared to recovery or check
>> your system thoroughly.
> Yes, which is why I comment now that the GUC alone is not enough.
> There is no way to "check your system thoroughly". If there is a certain
> way of knowing torn pages had *not* occurred, then I would be happy.
I agree with Simon that this isn't much of a solution: no one who cares
about their data will dare turn off the option, and therefore the
possible performance gain is just hot air.
I do not see a better alternative at the moment :-( but we should keep
thinking about it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-07-07 04:10:25 | Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-07-07 02:54:08 | PQescapeIdentifier |